EU nuclear deal suits US as well as Iran, says Jane's editor

London, Dec 4, IRNA -- The European Union's agreement on Iran's
nuclear program temporarily suits the US as well as the Islamic
Republic, according to the Iran editor of Jane's Sentinel magazine,
Alex Vatanka.

"It is a win-win situation for both to some extent," Vatanka said
in an interview with IRNA. "Time was essential for each to follow
their own distinctive agenda with different goals."

He said that the US "really needed time to prove their case"
because of the lack of evidence, while for Iran, it "takes the
pressure off for now."

"The Americans were fully aware of where they were going to
stand. The Chinese, and particularly the Russians, had been saying
for months that to solve the nuclear issue on Iran you don't need to
take it to the Security Council," the security analyst said.

He said that the dilemma for the US was that it "had to prove
Iran is up to no good and clearly the issue of imposing sanctions
was not going to happen."

"It was not taken too serious so the multilateral forum is where
the Americans are standing in seeking more time to prove to the
Russians, French and Germans what would happen in the Middle East if
Iran went nuclear," Vatanka said.

He said that the problem was that the "the clear-cut, very
decisive and undisputed evidence is missing." This, he suggested, was
due to the "weakness" of US intelligence.

"Given what happened in Iraq, it was a stinker in terms of
intelligence. It proved to be a total failure and the US cannot
afford to do the same thing again," the Iran editor told IRNA.

He suggested that there were even conflicting opinions on whether
the US had to depend upon claims made against Iran by the
Mujahideen-e Khalq (MKO) terrorist groups or if Washington was
effectively using the MKO as a mouthpiece.

With regard to the possibility of the US attacking Iran or even
carrying out limited strikes using Israel as a proxy, Vatanka said
limited intelligence was having an effect on the "big debate in
Washington about the cost and benefit analysis."

"If you have limited intelligence you can be sure the Iranians
are going to take the ball from you by mobilizing resources and try
to get back at the US, particularly in the region, like in Iraq and
Afghanistan," he said.

The analyst ruled out an "Iraqi-style invasion of Iran because of
the cost."

He said that the Americans "simply do not have the troops and are
looking at what Iran could do to them in retaliation."

The potential targets were also unclear on whether it would be
simply sites reported or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Because of
a lack of intelligence, the US "don't know if it will be enough to
kill the nuclear program," he said.

Vatanka suggested that the possibility of Iran having a nuclear
card was so important for the US, saying it would "shift the balance
of power so much that it would seriously undermine a lot of America's
efforts in the region."

"If the Americans, who are talking about a greater Middle East
peace effort are seriously talking about it, they cannot allow a
country the size of Iran with its resources to poke them in the eye
whenever they choose," he said.

Jane's editor believed that the US needed to deal with Iran, but
said that it "really has to try the softer approach as the harder
approach has not worked."

"If you look at it logically, I think this current policy of not
dealing with one another is not working," he said, suggesting that
the US choice could be to deal with Iran like North Korea, which had
not worked very well, or with Libya.

The Iran editor also pointed to the way the US accepted Pakistan
going nuclear and "suddenly it became one of its closest allies in
the region."

"If you can reach some kind of understanding with Iran, maybe
behind the curtain, that it has gone nuclear or was so close it cannot
be stopped, you could accept it as a Cold War-style deterrence, like
Pakistan," he suggested.

Vatanka pointed out that Iran had not been an aggressor and had
not invaded any other country for over 300 years.

"Iran is no Saddam Hussein, who attacked neighbors every second
day," he said.

If the US could get "reassurance from the Iranians they will
behave themselves" a compromise could be reached to allow it to be
nuclear like Pakistan, he said.

But for this to happen, the editor said that Iran would "have to
tone down its rhetoric."

He said "it would be difficult for Iran, given its history, the
size of the country and its natural leadership in the Middle East to
have to bite the bullet."

For the US to reach some compromise, he referred to US President
George W. Bush having nothing to lose in his second and final term in
office.

"For the Republicans to have some kind of rapprochement with Iran,
the way they did with Libya, would be a huge issue and certainly help
them in Iraq and Afghanistan," Vatanka said.

He warned that it would take a "whole shift of thinking in the
way the two countries stand" but believed that the US and Iran "to a
large extent have a lot to gain by cooperating," and mentioned the
need to keep Iraq together as a stable country as well as Afghanistan.

A possible opportunity to move towards some kind of rapprochement
could come with next year's elections in Iran, the editor suggested.